Page 133 - TPA Police Officers Guide 2021

“legal justification for the traffic stop must be ‘objectively grounded.’”

Officer Uresti testified at trial that he observed the vehicle that Onyeri was riding in commit a minor traffic vio-
lation, making a wide right-hand turn into an adjacent lane. He explained how a proper right-hand turn should be
made, according to the Texas Transportation Code: “when making a right turn, the operator shall approach and com-
plete the turn closest to the . . . right-hand curb or the edge of the roadway.” In this case, Officer Uresti testified,
the number two lane was the proper lane for completing a right turn; “[t]he inside lane closest to the median is
the number one lane, and the outside lane is the number two lane.” But, he told the district court, he saw the ve-
hicle make an improper turn “into the number one lane” in violation of Texas Transportation Code § 545.101. Of-
ficer Uresti’s observation of this traffic violation therefore gave him an objectively grounded legal
justification—and sufficient probable cause—to initiate the stop.

Onyeri disputes the district court’s finding that Officer Uresti’s\ testimony was credible. The crux of his argument
centers on Officer Uresti’s responses that he didn’t remember certain details of the traffic stop. Onyeri argues that
Officer Uresti’s failure to recall aspects of the stop undermines the district court’s credibility finding, and there-
fore, any probable cause. Onyeri’s contentions are misleading. Officer Uresti also answered,

with certainty, many other questions about the traffic stop. For example, he testified that traffic was permitted to
flow during the traffic stop and that the road was not obstructed. He also stated that his line of sight to the silver
Charger was not obstructed in any way and that he had no doubt that he saw the Charger turn into the number one
lane. These details are crucial to the determination of whether to stop the Charger, and whether the officers had
probable cause. In contrast, many of the aspects of the stop that Officer Uresti could not remember were unim-
portant to the propriety of initiating the traffic stop.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court correctly denied Onyeri’s motion to suppress.

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

th
U.S. v. Onyeri, No. 18-50869, Fifth Circuit, Apr. 28 , 2021.
**************************************************************************

REASONABLE SUSPICION –STOP & FRISK

Justin Harrington Darrell was arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He entered a con-
ditional guilty plea, and now challenges the legality of the stop that precipitated his arrest. Finding no constitutional
infirmity, we affirm Darrell’s conviction and sentence.

On September 3, 2017, Alcorn County Sheriff’s Deputy Shane Latch and Farmington Police Department Officer
Mike Billingsley drove to a home in Corinth, Mississippi. They intended to serve an arrest warrant on one of the
home’s occupants, Brandy Smith, for failing to appear in court. Deputy Latch later described the residence as “a
known drug house” where multiple arrests and disturbances—including a shooting—had taken place in the past.
Indeed, Latch himself had made several arrests there.

( The record does not state at what time the officers departed for the house, but Darrell contends that all relevant
events took place “during daytime.” )

As the uniformed officers pulled up to the house in two marked squad cars, they saw a black Chevrolet Camaro

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 127 2021 Edition